Renaming a Standalone+Path into bundle->need Help

I tried to rename a standalone that I made with 4.6.2.
After renaming the standalone just starts the empty status window.
I searched the archives for a solution, no results.

If a musician that is using the standalone is accidently renaming the standalone he is no more able to use it. He even does not know what went wrong.

This isn?t true, is it?

Further I tried to save lots of files within a bundle as I did in 4.5. as this is a perfect security measure against deleting stuff by unexperienced users (musicians) and one of the big advantages in OSX.

I cannot find a way in 4.6.2 to read or write files into the bundle without using the name of the standalone. This is perfect for a situation where the name stays always the same (as it is now if one is locking the name by a flag but that?s 80?s style computing btw.). I think it is a BIG restriction to get only the parent directory in "sendapppath" and ./

Renaming apps is difficult in lots of contexts. You can’t even *move*
Dictionary without breaking the Look Up in Dictionary context menu.
Some other apps won’t launch at all if you move or rename them
(Safari exhibited this problem a while back).

The irony is that we mostly got out of locking down app names &
locations in the 80s (at least on Mac).

I agree that it would be nice of Max/MSP standalones were more robust
in this regard, but in the meantime I have no compunctions about Get
Info->Locked and/or SetFile -a L

An app’s gotta do what an app’s gotta do.

On 1-Nov-2006, at 11:17, Bernd wrote:

> This is perfect for a situation where the name stays always the
> same (as it is now if one is locking the name by a flag but that?s
> 80?s style computing btw.)

> While protecting users from themselves is
> always a dicey proposition, this particular
> sort of idiocy can be dealt with fairly
> easily, and by you.

And, since we’re operating across a linguistic boundary,
I just want to make it clear that the term "idiocy" is
applied to the act of deciding to rename the standalone
called "BerndFacit" to "KneesUpMotherBrown," not the
initial post itself. Hope that’s clear.

2 – you don’t hard-code a fixed ./bundle-name.app/ for paths inside the bundle.

Possible solutions?

Parse the ./ folder at startup to get the bundle name and stash it in a value object. Javascript would be my weapon of choice. That takes care of #2.

#1 is trickier. It might be possible to write a shell script that gets the bundle name, renames the .mxf if needed, then starts the Max runtime. Edit the info.plist so the executable field points to the shell script…

> While protecting users from themselves is
> always a dicey proposition, this particular
> sort of idiocy can be dealt with fairly
> easily, and by you.

And, since we’re operating across a linguistic boundary,
I just want to make it clear that the term "idiocy" is
applied to the act of deciding to rename the standalone
called "BerndFacit" to "KneesUpMotherBrown," not the
initial post itself. Hope that’s clear.

Huuuh…?

I don?t know which (not supported) I triggered here…

Please help me if I am getting things wrong, but it was all there in 4.5.7 .

I could build standalones, I gave them out to different people, people where renaming them to different shows they did with it, all the relevant coll/pattr-derived files could be easily written within these "Show-bundles" using sendapppath and ./ as paths to the individual shows.

Now everything seems broken, that?s my problem.

I don?t want to discuss if it is "idiocy" to rename a application on a computer and after that the functionality of that app is broken. I think this is not the way it should be, but ok if C74 decides that?s groovy, ok that?the way it will be.

My question was, is there a workaround or any help that could be given (that?s what this forum is for I think).

How about giving your users the means to save a config or project file? This seems to me to be far more in line with general application design than requiring them to rename your application for each seperate instance where it might get used.

Yes I agree this is a possibility and all the big players do it that way, but I think we are loosing one of the biggest advantages OSX has built-in:

bundles

It is the best solution for performance oriented project handling. If you have finished your show/installation etc. everything is safe "inside" the bundle.

No nervous "Spotlight-search-result-drag-that-sound-here" action can destroy your work a day/hour/minute before the premiere.

Spotlight does not look "inside" application bundles by default.

On windows XP we worked with a "not renameable" app inside a parent folder that could be renamed and that contained all relevant sounds/coll-/pattrfiles.
All users loved that idea to have everything inside a folder, but they never really accepted why they shouldn?t rename the "application".